Commonwealth v. Donaghy
33 A.3d 12
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Donaghy pled guilty to multiple robbery-related charges after a 2007 attempt with two accomplices.
- He was sentenced in 2009 to 9–18 years’ imprisonment plus 15 years’ probation; he did not appeal directly.
- In 2010, Donaghy filed a pro se PCRA petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to pursue a direct appeal.
- The PCRA court denied the petition; Donaghy appealed claiming counsel did not properly consult about an appeal.
- The court credited defense counsel’s testimony and denied relief; Donaghy contends the letter and inquiries showed a desire to appeal.
- The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed, holding counsel failed to comply with Flores-Ortega duties to consult and to ascertain Donaghy’s appellate wishes, and remanded with direct appellate rights reinstated nunc pro tunc.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel's failure to consult about an appeal violated Flores-Ortega. | Donaghy asserted counsel did not properly ascertain his wish to appeal. | Counsel believed no merit in an appeal and acted within professional conduct. | Yes; improper consultation violated Flores-Ortega. |
| Whether a clear request for an appeal existed warranting automatic prejudice. | Donaghy’s March 19, 2009 letter and daughter’s statements showed desire to appeal. | Counsel did not receive a clear, explicit request to file an appeal. | No clear request required; Flores-Ortega still requires reasonable inquiry, which was lacking. |
| Whether the court properly applied Flores-Ortega and Strickland to evaluate prejudice. | Deficient consultation prejudiced Donaghy because he would have timely appealed. | No proven prejudice since no explicit request and no viable issues alleged. | Prejudice established; remand warranted to reinstate direct appellate rights. |
| Whether the remedy should reinstate direct appellate rights nunc pro tunc. | Failure to consult necessitates restoring appellate rights to pursue direct appeal. | No grounds to reinstate rights if no valid appeal was sought. | Reversed; direct appellate rights reinstated nunc pro tunc. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Burkett, 5 A.3d 1260 (Pa. Super. 2010) (standard for PCRA order review—supported by record and no legal error)
- Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 736 A.2d 564 (Pa. Super. 1999) (presumption of prejudice when defendant clearly asks for appeal and counsel fails)
- Commonwealth v. Tome, 781 A.2d 1250 (Pa. Super. 2001) (addressed ambiguous wishes regarding appeal after guilty plea)
- Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (U.S. 2000) (duty to consult about appeal; framework for prejudice analysis)
- Commonwealth v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (U.S. 2000) (two-prong Strickland-based test for ineffective assistance in failing to consult)
- Commonwealth v. McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981) (Anders framework allows meritless-appeal withdrawal preserving rights)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009) (Anders framework and preservation of appellate rights noted)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (basis for retaining appellate rights when counsel withdraws)
- Peguero v. United States, 119 S. Ct. 961 (1999) (quoted regarding nonmerit grounds burden on defendant seeking appeal)